User talk:Only/Archive 16

Welcome to my talk page! I tend to reply to messages directly on here, so I suggest watching my page if you're looking for a reply. I watch user talk pages I comment on so we can keep conversations organized. I reserve the right to modify excessive signatures left here.

Archives I − II − III − IV - V - VI - VII - VIII - IX - X - XI - XII - XIII - XIV - XV

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I know this might seem silly – giving a barnstar to the editor who has not done one's rollback request. But really, the barnstar is for the diligent effort you've taken to lucidly explain your position – after analysing my contributions. It takes effort and time and I thank you for that. Xender Lourdes (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I hope you follow the advice! If you feel you've put in good work with vandalism work over the next few weeks, feel free to drop a note here to ask for permission, or request again at the permissions board. only (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Only. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sent a reply. only (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Cross country

For the edit on the cross country page my photo was of a cross country meet. Most high school and college cross country meets run the last part on a track. Nevertheless, I will look through my photos to see if I can find a cross country photo that is not on a track for people who think they know it all like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glumdog (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

While it's true that that frequently happens, that wasn't a cross country meet. It's the Oregon Relays. It's a track meet held every spring. On top of that, the photo has now been deleted from Commons since it was a copyright violation. only (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:MMAGuy8

Hi Only. I see that you have indefinitely blocked User:MMAGuy8 for vandalism. I am wondering if Special:Contributions/Mr. Bellator might be being used for block evasion or be a WP:DUCK. The account was created around the same time you indefed the other, and is being used to edit the same genre of articles. It's also being used to edit various sandboxes of MMAGuy8, which seems to be a bit unusual unless there's a connection between the two. -- 02:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really able to look into it this week (popped in to read an article and saw the new message link). Seems like obvious duck though, so take it to any active admin and they should be able to block. only (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Understand. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Heyy Only

Greetings -

I hope I haven't started off on the wrong foot with you. I really did mean well when I restored the messages. I knew that users were allowed the remove messages from the page, but I didn't know about the three-edit revert rule, and I'm glad you're willing to give me a second chance. Gilliam showed me the OW template, which I can use instead. I've reverted edits on the same page WAY more than 3 times before, never being punished or noticed :O. I'm glad this happened now so I can take this in account in the future. I hope that in my past few hundred edits, I haven't made any other mistakes.

I apologize for potentially angering you. Perhaps we can start fresh?

Thank you very much for your time and advice.

3primetime3 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jude Law page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi is edit warring again causing disruption by GRAVEDANCING and edit warring

Hi Only, Could you please take some action even if only warning to user Winkelvi. I looked up their block log and noticed they have a lengthy history of edit warring and getting blocked for it. This time Winkelvi has been carrying on a campaign of GRAVEDANCING an editors subpages causing disruption that is unnecessary. The lengths Winkelvi has been going this time to grave dance now include edit warring, attacking all articles created by the editor. Many of the article s were saved by a group of admins and editors that took responsibility for the article. Winkelvi keeps making statements that the editotlr is a banned sock puppet. This is a lie because the editor in question is an indeffed from editing blocked pending an outcome from an ARBCOM case. Winkelvi has also stated that the editor is a sock puppet of de facto banned editor Carriearchdale. I could be wrong, but I looked up the block log for this Carrie and I only see where she was only ever indeffed from editing blocked, never banned at all much less de facto banned whatever that is. Please help can you get Winkelvi to stop grave glancing and now escalating the grave dancing to include lies and edit warring Thanks. Zpeopleheart (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no clue what's going on here and don't really have the energy/desire to look into this further. Try asking other admins or WP:AN or WP:ANI if other avenues have been tried and failed. only (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

FBLA

For both the national officer team and the conferences tab, there is clear precedent from other organization's pages doing this and I believe that FBLA should have the same content. DECA's Wikipedia page features both future and past conferences and both their HS and college officer teams. FFA and TSA also have their officer team on their pages and HOSA has their past and future conferences.

Including the conferences is similar to adding fixtures for a football or rugby team on their page and you never see a team page with just the captain or manager, it shows the entire team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeetfbla (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

please discuss this at the talk page of the article. Not here. It's long standing consensus not to have this kind of information in. Please discuss at the talk page and get consensus rather than just restoring your changes again and again. only (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

John Taylor (reality show star)

Removed autobiography message. There is no external relationship. Just did my homework on the subject after watching the tv series. Cited everything well. Please stop posting message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayl2104 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

the tv show aired in 2010, right? So if you "did your homework...after watching the tv series," how come you first started making articles on Taylor in 2007? Based on your edits and your user name, it's pretty clear you're the subject of the article. only (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that File:John Taylor & Tanisha Mitchell-the obesity crisis.jpg says Tayl2104 was at backstage with John Taylor was with Tanisha Mitchell, but does not mention being with John Taylor although mentions both as subjects of the image. The description vaguely hints that Tayl2104 is not John Taylor. Generally speaking the person who took the photograph is also the copyright holder, which implies it's unlikely that Tayl2104 would be John Taylor. I see that there's still a conflict of interest for being closely associated with the subject(s). Maybe the OTRS team should also verify the image, as I have no access to the source linked. Further talk should be raised at the article's talk page. (Feel free to quote me there.) 80.221.159.67 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Because if you noticed, I also wrote about his father, Jerry Balisok, who was an FBI fugitive featured in numerous publications. Then learned more about the family. see contributions under review. Please stop with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayl2104 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

the first time you wrote about Balisok was in July of this year. You wrote about Taylor in 2007 and 2011 and 2013. You're clearly lying. only (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edit war that surrounded this, there's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tayl2104 reported by User:80.221.159.67 (Result: ). 80.221.159.67 (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:FIFA 16 AC Milan Career Season 1

Since you speedy deleted the previous version of the draft, please comment on the new deletion. Matthew_hk tc 17:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Only.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Only. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Hello Only: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Only!

Happy New Year!

Only,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 18:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete me!

PLEASE DELETE MY ACCOUNT, AS WELL AS THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO! THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alridge (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

How odd

I must have declined unblock on some other user with exactly the same language recently -- or my brain had a very funny hiccup. I really thought I had just very recently declined Entertainment Associates, not four years ago. Scratching head in puzzlement. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The years just blend together when you've been on Wikipedia well over a decade! only (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize!

I must have touched a nerve. I apologize and regret that my questions had upset you. I wasn't aiming to accuse you of anything to anybody. Instead, I had hoped to understand better the ropes and ways. I won't bother you again. ———→StephenTS42 (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There's certainly an implication behind your questions that suggests you're accusing me of violating policies. only (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you sensed any implication. My questions were direct and to the point. Had I suspected you were violating policies, what would be the purpose of asking you questions about policies? Short of implying paranoia I believe you were Jumping to conclusions. Once again, I apologize for any misunderstanding and I regret if I hurt your feelings. As I wrote before, I won't bother you again (unless you have any further comments or questions for me). Thank you for your time! ———→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Moors

Thanks, but it turns out to have been a futile block as they are back with the same revert, virtually the same edit summary.[1] I've asked at WP:RPP for semi-protection, which IMHO needs to be for months, not days. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I was just coming to look into it and see it's been done for 2 weeks by Ad Orientem. only (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. And now it's personal attacks.[2] Doug Weller talk 18:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And Ad Orientem blocked the IP just now as I clicked to do it! He's gotta stop hogging all the admin actions. only (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ad dealt with them. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A message of thanks

Thank you for taking action on the Safeco Field article. The joke was pretty funny early on, but wore thin fast. Again, thank you for taking the necessary steps for this action. Cheers.Johnnysama (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism

Thank you for the info. I am going to give the academy a try. Katz191 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Wekepede block

Username? I was getting ready to block for continued removal of information/edit warring but I had no idea this was a username violation. Did I miss this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

My assumption is that it's meant to be like "wiki" and "pede" as in the internet "meme" name for "pedophile." only (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I read that as "Wikipede" like centipede, or a member of Wikipedia. Never even thought of that possibility. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick question

I have a question:Could you take a look at the this talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Investment please. It contains almost all the discussion me and Jytdog (the user I have been dealing with) have had on the Project. I am just wondering if his behaviour qualifies as "Wikihounding".

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Only. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Sorry about that did not mean to delete the incumbents and also thank you for your edit just next time ask if someone wants help because what I was trying to do was add a new section for the candidates who got elected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metro north (talk • contribs) 03:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

GippoHippo discussion

I saw the discussion that led to the user being blocked. Although the user was violating policy insulting people, I have to point out that per WP:PERSONAL, "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page." I don't know if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that it was more appropriate to go to the user's talk page rather than warn him right there and then. Thinker78 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with issuing in the warning in the context of that conversation that was on-going there. I don't think we need to wikilawyer over these aspects with a user who clearly demonstrated the necessity of a block. He truly didn't need to be warned to not call people arrogant swines. only (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware he didn't need to be warn. But given that a warning was issued, probably it would have been better to be posted in his/her talk page. Just my 2 cents as a wikilawyer. Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

67.253.195.32

• 67.253.195.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

I came across this IPs recent edits and saw that they were being disruptive after your previous 1 month block. Would you mind blocking them again? Thanks. 47.155.173.197 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like User:RickinBaltimore already blocked the IP address. Thanks anyway... 72.178.152.52 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

They were reported at AIV earlier this morning, where I saw the report. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad this was already handled. only (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have a group of IPs from around the Red Sea doing little more than changing redirects with no discussion

I see you've blocked 95.185.225.19 for a week. There have been more IPs in that region behaving similar, you should take a look at [3]. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oscar247

Hi. I just recently noticed the account Oscar247, which edited one of the same pages (Alex Jones) as Oscar248, an account you recently permabanned. I think they're probably the same person (and possibly the same user as the permanently banned Raspberry Blood). PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oscar247, though I feel like it's an obvious case. I just want to see if it goes deeper. only (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that helps. only (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for talk page protection

Thank you for taking the time to consider my request and looking into it. I would like to make one small quibble in that I'm not sure that there are actually two users. The registered one (André53 (talk · contribs)) has been polite and has contacted me on my user talk where he has been insistent but not rude and manages to type out words like "you" and capitalize names while of these characteristics apply to the non-registered one, (84.111.233.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). I suppose this could be a case of WP:GHBH and they really are one as you say. I modified one of the standard warning templates for the IP user so I would like your opinion if this warning is sufficient to escalate to AIV. They have since blanked the warning, which I understand generally is accepted as having been read. Thanks again and Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right; when I was looking at it, I didn't read all of the statements fully so it seemed like Andre53 was posting the sections, then continuing in the sections as an IP rather than his logged in account. But now that I'm reading the statements more closely, they do seem to be two different users as you've pointed out.

Personally, I don't think the IP's behaviors have been block worthy yet. While they're posting ridiculous statements like WIkipedia's reputation will be tarnished or this article will never be given good article status if we don't include the statement in the article, there hasn't been disruptive enough behavior for a block at this time. It seems annoying, but I don't think it's vandalism at the moment nor is it at the level of a block for disruptive editing. only (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. There seem to be a few more voices joining the discussion, which may help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Block-evading vandal

The anonymous vandal you blocked earlier, 86.155.32.158 is now evading that block using the IP 81.156.163.75 and continuing his POV-pushing and general disruption. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. It looks like he'd already moved onto that second IP before I'd blocked the first IP. only (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that. But, this fits his pattern. NinjaRobotPirate has blocked several IPs for evasion that were all used by this same person. Part of the problem is that he actually does make some good edits, he's just so convinced of his own POV that he refuses to consider that he's wrong or that he has to engage in constructive discussion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And, another one: User:86.132.173.166.

Got that one, too. only (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like that other IP editor. There was an ANI thread about this IP that I could probably dig up if I searched for it. I agree with TOJ that some of his edits are good, but those get buried under the rampant POV-pushing once he decides he knows better than anyone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, NRP. He's going off the rails on the Scott Pilgrim article, demanding the nationality be described in a certain manner, despite the contradiction between the sources. I told him that I added a note (which I do not I formatted correctly), per the FilmProject's suggestion, saying that the sources contradict each other. This has not been enough to satisfy him. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

He's back, having clearly learned his lesson. Now using 86.139.199.17 and pushing his POV again. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I blocked it. Unfortunately, the IPs are too spread out to work for a range block. only (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I see that. Because he's already evading the block as 86.152.90.86. @NinjaRobotPirate: do you have any ideas? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes you can range block a /24 from BT. There's often no collateral damage, but I'd check to make sure first. What I do is keep a list of the IP addresses used, and when the same /24 gets used a few times, I range block it. They eventually run out of IP ranges, but it takes a while. BT is huge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl protection

Hi, I noticed you gave Super Smash Bros. Brawl pending changes protection but given it's already semi-protected, it's not going to change anything. Did you mean to remove the semi? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, good catch. Thought I'd taken that step as well! only (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please block this user 2600:1017:B812:724A:A4A0:B615:AAA4:666

This user has been deleting useful information on Yana Dementyeva's Wikipedia page and is making the article look like a stub from all of their edits. Thanks Metro north (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to block this IP. ScrapIronIV was correct in what he told you. It's on you to provide reliable sources to add that information back in per WP:CHALLENGE which is part of our verifiability policy. Even though you know it is true, we need reliable sources to show it. only (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that and sorry for wasting your time on this. Thanks Metro north (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

George Latimer (Politician)

I noticed on George Latimer (Politican) wikipedia page there is no photo and was wondering if a photo could be added because I recall there being a photo but could not find it. Thanks Metro north (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You'll want to read our Wikipedia:Image_use_policy to learn about how to add images and what images can and cannot be used. only (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Metro north (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocking articles related to AFC U-23 Championship

Dear Only,

I am a sysop of Vietnamese Wikipedia. There is a football match happening on Jan 27 2018, between Vietnam and Uzbekistan in AFC U23 Tournament. Therefore, a huge number of fans from Vietnam may come to English Wikipedia and vandalize many articles. I need you block (or semi-block) these articles:

• Ma Ning (referee) (the referee of the match)
• Ma Ning
• Vietnam national under-23 football team
• Park Hang-seo (the coach of Vietnam team)
• Nguyễn Công Phượng
• Lương Xuân Trường
• 2018 AFC U-23 Championship
• Hà Đức Chinh
• Nguyễn Quang Hải (footballer, born 1997)
• Bùi Tiến Dũng (footballer, born 1997)

Besides, I hope you follow up relevant articles. Thanks! Alphama (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

We do not protect articles preemptively. If trouble starts, we can examine the articles then. But we do not protect them because trouble “may” happened. only (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Built Ford Tough article

Only, there was no need for full protection on the Built Ford Tough Series article. Full protection is generally for serious edit warring, not minor issues like this one. Most of the problems were coming from anon IPs who would not engage on the talkpage. The regular users with differences of opinion were respectfully discussing the issue. I suggest you undo the full protection and perhaps, for now, just semi-protect it so the drive-by editors leave it alone. The bottom line is that the old name had a lot of history and so whatever the end result, the content of the article will need slower and more thoughtful, sourced changes. Montanabw^(talk) 01:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Tabarnia

Hello, since you protected Tabarnia in the past I would appreciate it if you could take the time to look at the recent content dispute at the article and see if it warrants a new block. To me it seems an obvious case of original research and Bias editing, so three other editors and myself have reverted it to the previous version a few times. Calls to reaching consensus at the talk page had no effect (See here). I posted a request at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Described_by_association_and_probable_original_research but there has been no answer yet. Other editors have also tried to remove the controversial edit but user Filiprino reverted it back, so interpreting that there is a clear consensus against the content of the edits I restored it once again. A new IP just reverted back again and commented in the talk page using similar arguments as Fliliprino. If you have the time I would appreciate the extra eyes and your recommendation on the best way to proceed, RfC, leave it alone, post it elsewhere etc... Regards, --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WKED-FM

Thanks for catching that; it seems to have been lingering for an absurdly long time as a duplicate article about the same station that we already have an article about at its current call sign. In accordance with our standard practice for radio stations that change their call signs, however, I've redirected it to the current call sign rather than leaving the prod in place — I ran a check and there's no other radio station currently using the WKED-FM call sign since WKDZ-FM switched away from it, so there's no competition for the title. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Noname83746

You issued a block at User talk:Noname83746 in December 2017, and after a suggestion they have offered an example of a sourced article addition - do you think an unblock now is warranted? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Only. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Only!

Happy New Year!

Only,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Rollback of my permission request

Hi. You just did a rollback at WP:PERM/R which - as far as I can tell - was about another user removing his declined request after the fact. However, you also removed by request for extension of my rollback rights (diff). Was there something wrong with my request as well or was it just an accident? Thanks! Best, Blablubbs (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, simply a case where I'd loaded the diff to revert the other user's edits before you made your edit, so collateral damage occurred in the seconds between. only (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

TPA

Might wish to revoke per this. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! only (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor Page Deletion Request

Hi, could you delete the redirect at WZYQ so that I could create a new page in it's place, for that same call sign? Per MOS and naming rules. Much appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20 on August 12, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Hey, where do you see it re-assigned? I looked in the FCC database and it seems to still be connected with WIQQ if I'm seeing things right, but my Google fu might be off. Any reason you need it deleted first and can't just turn the redirect into an article? only (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the current FM document for WZYQ. It is owned by the same company, but is basically a completely different station. It's generally frowned upon since there is previous history connected to this version of WZYQ. I wouldn't mind, it would save me time, but I've seen editors TROUT'd and snipped at for it. So, typically the page is G6'd unless it's a history swap (this sadly isn't) and a new article takes it's place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:49 on August 12, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Done. I trust you to have the reliable sources for it to show it being used now as a different station! Searching again, I see this press release from the owners' site. only (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oooh, more sources! :) Yeah, I do. Give a look-see WZYQ. Let me add that one too. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04 on August 12, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

JBW

See this which I posted to JBW's talk page. thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have any skin in the game or opinion on whether they should be unblocked; I was just pinging JBW back to the page since he hadn't seemed to acknowledge the CU's response and it's been sitting for a few weeks. only (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Socker Alert

Only, that user User:thetruemantruth3131 has created another account to evade his indefinite block from you. His user is User:HelloEverybody4567 he is making the exact same vandalistic edits on that user page. Could you please help? Thanks. From User:2A02:C7F:5063:FA00:755F:BE96:4FAE:A3B8 24:04 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it: thanks. only (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking me. I won’t make you regret it. Equine-man (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Chazz Woodson

Why did you remove all of that information from the Chazz Woodson page? I know some of it was unsourced and kind of opinion, although in my opinion still good information to have, but you have about 10x as many edits as I do so if you choose not to have it that makes sense. However, a lot of it was sourced or was taken from a source used later, such as winning the trick shot competition, working for the high school and middle school, and his company. Can I undo your edit and update it and add sources? Twooeight (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The only "sourced" edit I removed was a link to a Google Site that says he's "mayor" of what appears to be a housing complex. Everything else was unsourced and basically all trivial. only (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Sir, Please accept my gratitude for your help in my unblock. Kind regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Slander

Thank you for responding to my request on Admin notice board. Can you please do somthing about this slander [4]? I had restored the earlier warnings so as to let you know that this user was sufficiently warned and my incremntal warning was following the levels in sequence.--Guy Foxx (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --Guy Foxx (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem. only (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Only; while I agree with the sentiment of your report on CLCStudent's reports, I'm wondering if we could find better examples. This IP has a long history of crap edits and many warnings; a good argument could be made for a block even with no edits since last warning. This user made an attempt, caught by the filter, to attack the Larry Hockett right after Larry gave them a final warning. This, however, is a good example. Maybe it's my imagination, but it seemed like the number of bad reports was going down (i.e., reporting a user immediately after giving them a final warning with no other edits). I do believe that the ANI report is a good idea; I'd like to see CLCStudent directly address the concerns there and give us some assurance that they'll take the feedback to heart. Addendum: all three of these are reasonable candidates to decline action; my point is that the first two could go either way, and I'm wondering if trendwise his reports are getting a little better. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: I was trying to use examples from today to show it actively on-going, but if you want to bring in some examples from the recent past that you think better illustrates it, definitely do so. I agree that it seemed like the bad reports were decreasing; I've also noticed a couples of times where he's reported something that would have been declined, then immediately self-reverted, so there seems to be some self-awareness there. only (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Ishisaka page deletion

Hi, Naomi is a friend & client of mine and we've been helping her with the slanderous edits to her wikipedia page. It looks like you deleted the page today, thank you for that. However if you google Naomi the slanderous Wikipedia metadata shows up in search including a link to a list of attempted murderers. I can't remove the link since the page no longer exists and I can't purge it for the same reason. Can you advise how to approach this problem? Thank you.

Hello, I have removed all reference I can find on Wikipedia itself. I do not know how the metadata from Google search is pulled, though, so I can't really be of service to you there. I honestly don't know if it's a "we have to wait out Google's bots to crawl the page again" thing or of it's a "if we click this box, that'll stop happening" thing. I think your best bet would be to email the info email address listed at Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects. They can (hopefully) provide better guidance than I can on this question. Sorry I can't be of further assistance; I think I've accomplished all I can do on my end at this time. only (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen this: [5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for sharing. Sad that the "spokesperson" shared that the user in question retired... but started editing again just 2 days later. And now that user is claiming they're being harassed. only (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What happened here is sad but predictable. There are too many experienced editors prone to doing WP:OR and putting references on sentences that when the reference doesn't corroborate the sentence. Just in the last couple of months I've engaged in stopping this crap over articles such as Bobby Floyd, Missy Gold, and the 1959 Open Championship. Some editors seem more concerned preserving their edits than adhering to the policies around here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

On the plus-side, I think this is a decent example of WP working the way it should. Anyone can edit, but what that anyone edited, anyone else can edit again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It didn't work at all. It is sheer stupidity to accuse someone wrongly of attempted murder when two people don't have the same name and it then taking two weeks for this idiocy to be wiped out. This is a major BLP violation fail. Here's a similar incident[6] except the pilot was dead for a decade but the horrifying accusation was up for three years....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The major BLP violation was removed when noticed. That is "working" IMO, I don't hope for better than "eventualism" (as in things will improve eventually). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

Adequate explanation was not provided until after I made the edits that you guys wanted to block me for.

Dealuri at utrs

Inclined to unblock per UTRS appeal #34757 It's long-winded and in broken English, but I think hits the salient points. Thoughts? - --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If you're comfortable with it. I'm still a little worried about allowing them to upload as they definitely did a lot of that in a little time it seems, but their statement does seem to hit the important parts of copyright. only (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

Sir, I believe diff needs to get revdelled too since it is visible. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m not of the belief it needs to be. Can you explain why it needs to be? only (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This revision by sinebot perhaps? COntains same revdel'd content as added by the anon. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)